All Issue

2025 Vol.34, Issue 2 Preview Page

Research Paper

Public Acceptability for Utilization of Organic Waste as Feedstock of Biomass Power Plants in South Korea

유기성 폐자원을 활용한 바이오매스 발전소에 대한 사회적 수용성 연구

이드미트리*‧이경진**‧배정환***

Dmitriy Li*, Kyeungjin Lee** and Jeong Hwan Bae***

*전남대학교 지역개발연구소 연구교수, 제1저자(e-mail: lddima82@yahoo.com)
**전남대학교 경제학부 석박사통합과정, 공저자(e-mail: wg4488@nate.com)
***전남대학교 경제학부 교수, 교신저자(e-mail: jhbae@jnu.ac.kr)
*Research Professor, Chonnam National University, Center for Regional Development, First author (e-mail: lddima82@yahoo.com)
**PhD Student, Department of Economics, Chonnam National University, Coauthor (e-mail: wg4488@nate.com)
***Professor, Department of Economics, Chonnam National University, Corresponding author (e-mail: jhbae@jnu.ac.kr)
30 June 2025. pp. 257-290
PDF Citation
Abstract
This study investigates public preferences for using organic waste as feedstock for biomass power plants in Korea through a choice experiment (CE). As biomass power generation gains attention as a sustainable energy alternative, understanding public acceptance is essential for effective policy design. The CE evaluates attributes such as annual subsidies, odor removal rates, plant distance, generation capacity, and the importation of organic waste from outside the region. Conditional and mixed logit models reveal that public acceptance improves with higher subsidies, better odor control, greater distance from residential areas, increased generation capacity, and the absence of external waste importation. The estimated mean annual compensation demand for biomass plant construction is 10,099 KRW per household. Additionally, latent class model results indicate that 57.5% of respondents would support the biomass power plant development. Policy recommendations include expanding renewable energy certificates, enhancing odor removal technology, encouraging local participation, and addressing feedstock transportation between regions to promote the biomass power plants.
Keywords
Biomass power plants
Organic waste
Circular economy
Choice experiment
Willingness to accept
본 연구는 국내에서 발생하는 하수슬러지, 음식폐기물, 축산분뇨 등의 유기성 폐자원을 바이오매스 발전소 연료로 이용하는 것에 대한 사회적수용성(preference)을 선택실험법(Choice Experiment, CE)을 이용하여 분석하였다. 선택실험법에서 사용한 주요 속성으로는 바이오매스 발전소에 대한 연간 보조금, 유기성 폐기물의 악취 제거율, 발전소와 거주지의 거리, 발전용량, 타 지역에서 유입되는 유기성 폐기물 허용 여부를 선택집합에 포함하였다. 조건부 로짓 및 혼합로짓 모형 분석 결과, 보조금 수준이 높고, 악취 제거율이 높으며, 발전소와 주거지역의 거리가 멀수록, 발전용량이 크고, 타지역 폐기물 반입이 없는 경우에 유기성 폐자원 기반 바이오매스 발전소에 대한 수용성이 높아지는 것으로 나타났다. 바이오매스 발전소 건설에 대한 연평균 보상 요구액은 가구당 10,099원으로 추정되었다. 또한 잠재계층모형(Latent Class Model) 분석 결과, 응답자의 57.5%가 바이오매스 발전소 도입을 찬성하는 것으로 나타났다. 정책적 시사점으로는 바이오매스 발전소에 대한 재생에너지 인증서 확대, 악취 저감 기준 도입, 지역 주민 참여 유도, 지역 간 유기성 폐자원 반입 문제의 합리적 해결 등이 제안되었다.
키워드
바이오매스 발전소
유기성 폐기물
순환경제
선택실험법
보상요구액
References
  1. Adamowicz, W., J. Louviere, and M. Williams, “Combining revealed and stated preference methods for valuing environmental amenities,” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Vol. 26, No. 3, 1994, pp. 271~292. 10.1006/jeem.1994.1017
  2. Adamowicz, W., J. Swait, P. Boxall, J. Louviere, and M. Williams, “Perceptions versus objective measures of environmental quality in combined revealed and stated preference models of environmental valuation,” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Vol. 32, No. 1, 1997, pp. 65~84. 10.1006/jeem.1996.0957
  3. Bae, J. H., M. Rishi, and D. Li, “Consumer preferences for a green certificate program in South Korea,” Energy, Vol. 230, 2021, 120726. 10.1016/j.energy.2021.120726
  4. Brown, T. C., and R. Gregory, “Why the WTA–WTP disparity matters,” Ecological Economics, Vol. 28, 1999, pp. 323~33510.1016/S0921-8009(98)00050-0
  5. Carlisle, J. E., D. Solan, S. L. Kane, and J. Joe, “Utility-scale solar and public attitudes toward siting: A critical examination of proximity,” Land Use Policy, Vol. 58, 2016, pp. 491~501. 10.1016/j.landusepol.2016.08.006
  6. Delicado, A., E. Figueiredo, and L. Silva, “Community perceptions of renewable energies in Portugal: Impacts on environment, landscape and local development,” Energy Research & Social Science, Vol. 13, 2016, pp. 84~93. 10.1016/j.erss.2015.12.007
  7. Devine-Wright, P., “Place attachment and public acceptance of renewable energy: A Tidal Energy Case Study,” Journal of Environmental Psychology, Vol. 31, No. 4, 2011, pp. 336~343. 10.1016/j.jenvp.2011.07.001
  8. Dhanya, B. S., A. Mishra, A. K. Chandel, and M. L. Verma, “Development of sustainable approaches for converting the organic waste to bioenergy,” Science of The Total Environment, Vol. 723, 2020, 138109. 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.13810932229385
  9. Dogan, E., and R. Inglesi-Lotz, “The impact of economic structure to the Environmental Kuznets Curve (EKC) hypothesis: Evidence from European countries,” Environmental Science and Pollution Research, Vol. 27, No. 11, 2020, pp. 12717~12724. 10.1007/s11356- 020-07878-232008192
  10. Greene, W. H., and D. A. Hensher, “A latent class model for discrete choice analysis: Contrasts with mixed logit,” Transportation Research. Part B, Methodological, Vol. 37, No. 8, 2003, pp. 681~698. 10.1016/S0191-2615(02)00046-2
  11. Hanemann, W. M., “Willingness to Pay and Willingness to Accept: How Much Can They Differ?” The American Economic Review, Vol. 81, No. 3, 1991, pp. 635~647. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2006525
  12. Hanley, N., R. E. Wright, and W. Adamowicz, “Using choice experiments to value the environment,” Environmental and Resource Economics, Vol. 11, No. 3-4, 1998, pp. 413~428.10.1023/A:1008287310583
  13. Horowitz, J. L., D. Bolduc, S. Divakar, J. Geweke, F. Gönül, V. Hajivassiliou, F. S. Koppelman, M. Keana, R. Matzkin, P. Rossi, and P. Ruud, “Advances in random utility models report of the workshop on advances in random utility models duke invitational symposium on choice modeling behavior,” Marketing Letters, Vol. 5, 1994, pp. 311~322. 10.1007/BF00999207
  14. IEA, Outlook for biogas and biomethane: Prospects for organic growth, OECD Publishing, Paris, 2020. 10.1787/040c8cd2-en
  15. Jenssen, T., “The good, the bad, and the ugly: Acceptance and opposition as keys to Bioenergy Technologies,” Journal of Urban Technology, Vol. 17, No. 2, 2010, pp. 99~115. 10.1080/10630732.2010.515086
  16. Johansen, K., “Local support for Renewable Energy Technologies? attitudes towards local near-shore wind farms among second home owners and permanent area residents on the Danish Coast,” Energy Policy, Vol. 132, 2019, pp. 691~701. 10.1016/j.enpol.2019.04.027
  17. Kang, H. C., “An analysis of the correspondence between environmental damage and the subsidy in the vicinity of a landfill in the Seoul Metropolitan Area,” Environmental and Resource Economics Review, Vol. 30, No. 3, 2021, pp. 365~393.
  18. Kim, H., A study on local acceptance of renewable energy installations: Focusing on externalities, KDI (Research monograph). Korea development institute (2020-04), 2020.
  19. Korea Environment Corporation, Food waste management system, Accessed 26 February 2024. https://www.citywaste.or.kr/EgovPageLink.do?link=/ucwmsNew/portal/sysInfo/sysInfo07
  20. Lee, H. J., S. Y. Huh, J. Woo, and C. Y. Lee, “A comparative study on acceptance of public and local residents for renewable energy projects – Focused on solar, wind, and biomass,” Innovation Studies, Vol. 15, No. 1, 2020, pp. 29~61.10.46251/INNOS.2020.02.15.1.29
  21. Lee, S. H., and Y. Jung, “Causal dynamics between renewable energy consumption and economic growth in South Korea: Empirical analysis and policy implications,” Energy & Environment, Vol. 29, No. 7, 2018, pp. 1298~1315.10.1177/0958305X18776546
  22. Lennon, B., N. P. Dunphy, and E. Sanvicente, “Community acceptability and the Energy Transition: A citizens’ perspective,” Energy, Sustainability and Society, Vol. 9, No. 1, 2019. 10.1186/s13705-019-0218-z
  23. Maleki-Dizaji, P., N. del Bufalo, M. R. Di Nucci, and M. Krug, “Overcoming barriers to the community acceptance of wind energy: Lessons learnt from a comparative analysis of best practice cases across Europe,” Sustainability, Vol. 12, No. 9, 2020, 3562. 10.3390/su12093562
  24. McFadden, D., Conditional Logit Analysis of Qualitative Choice Behavior, In P. Zarembka (ed.), Economic theory and mathematical economics (pp. 105~142), Academic Press, 1974.
  25. Ministry of Environment (MOE). Strategy to promote biogas production and utilization [바이오가스 생산·이용 활성화 전략]. Sejong: Ministry of Environment, 2024, Republic of Korea. Retrieved from https://www.me.go.kr/home/file/readDownloadFile.do?fileId=211628&fileSeq=1
  26. Ministry of the Environment (MOE), The law of promoting the production and use of biogas using organic waste resources, Korean Law Information Center, 2023. https://www.law.go.kr/
  27. Ministry of Trade, Industry and Energy, Strategy for promoting unused biomass power generation, Internal Report, 2023.
  28. Prosperi, M., M. Lombardi, and A. Spada, “Ex ante assessment of social acceptance of small-scale agro-energy system: A case study in southern italy,” Energy Policy, Vol. 124, 2019, pp. 346~354. 10.1016/j.enpol.2018.10.015
  29. Revelt, D., and K. Train, Customer-specific taste parameters and mixed logit: Households’ choice of electricity supplier, 2000. https://escholarship.org/uc/item/1900p96t
  30. Segreto, M., L. Principe, A. Desormeaux, M. Torre, L. Tomassetti, P. Tratzi, V. Paolini, and F. Petracchini, “Trends in social acceptance of renewable energy across Europe-A literature review,” International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, Vol. 17, No. 24, 2020, 9161. 10.3390/ijerph1724916133302464PMC7764547
  31. Sevillano, C. A., A. A. Pesantes, Peña E. Carpio, E. J. Martínez, and X. Gómez, “Anaerobic digestion for producing renewable energy—the evolution of this technology in a new uncertain scenario,” Entropy, Vol. 23, No. 2, 2021, 145. 10.3390/e2302014533503933PMC7912667
  32. Soland, M., N. Steimer, and G. Walter, “Local acceptance of existing biogas plants in Switzerland,” Energy Policy, Vol. 61, 2013, pp. 802~810. 10.1016/j.enpol.2013.06.111
  33. Talaiekhozani, A., M. Bagheri, A. Goli, and Talaei M. R. Khoozani, “An overview of principles of odor production, emission, and control methods in wastewater collection and Treatment Systems,” Journal of Environmental Management, Vol. 170, 2016, pp. 186~206. 10.1016/j.jenvman.2016.01.02126829452
  34. Upreti, B. R., and D. van der Horst, “National Renewable Energy Policy and local opposition in the UK: The failed development of a biomass electricity plant,” Biomass and Bioenergy, Vol. 26, No. 1, 2004, pp. 61~69. 10.1016/s0961-9534(03)00099-0
  35. Venus, T. E., M. Hinzmann, T. H. Bakken, H. Gerdes, F. N. Godinho, B. Hansen, A. Pinheiro, and J. Sauer, “The public’s perception of run-of-the-river hydropower across Europe,” Energy Policy, Vol. 140, 2020, 111422. 10.1016/j.enpol.2020.111422
  36. Won, D. H., “A comparative study on NIMBY to nuclear power plants,” Environmental and Resource Economics Review, Vol. 28, No. 4, 2019, pp. 557~581.
  37. Yoo, D. G., D. H. Shin, and D. H. Won, “A study of residents acceptability on the construction solid refuse fuel (SRF) Power Plant,” Journal of Social Sciences, Vol. 61, No. 3, 2022, pp. 99~120.10.22418/JSS.2022.12.61.3.99
  38. Yoo, J., and R. C. Ready, “Preference heterogeneity for Renewable Energy Technology,” Energy Economics, Vol. 42, 2014, pp. 101~114. 10.1016/j.eneco.2013.12.007
  39. Zueva, S., F. Ferella, V. Corradini, and F. Vegliò, “Review of organic waste-to-energy (OWTE) technologies as a part of a sustainable circular economy,” Energies, Vol. 17, No. 15, 2024, 3797. 10.3390/en17153797
Information
  • Publisher :Environmental and Resource Economics Review
  • Publisher(Ko) :자원 · 환경경제연구
  • Journal Title :자원·환경경제연구
  • Journal Title(Ko) :Environmental and Resource Economics Review
  • Volume : 34
  • No :2
  • Pages :257-290
  • DOI :https://doi.org/10.15266/KEREA.2025.34.2.257
Journal Informaiton 자원·환경경제연구 자원·환경경제연구
E-Book
Manuscript Submission
한국환경경제학회
Manuscript Submission
한국자원경제학회
  • NRF
  • KISTI Current Status
  • KISTI Cited-by
  • crosscheck
  • orcid
  • open access
  • ccl
Journal Informaiton Journal Informaiton - close